Phoenix Journal 197 - Four Winds 10

Basically, the case involved an action by Mr. Leslie Oliver and others who had written a book entitled A
Dweller on Two Planets. Oliver admitted that he had received the information from a higher (nonphysical)
entity named Phylos. Mr. Oliver even admitted that he was not the author of the work, but that
Phylos was. Oliver contended that an author connected with Saint Germain Foundation had plagiarized
Oliver’s material to write a similar book. The action by Oliver sought an injunction, damages, and impounding
of all copies of the offending book and to be finally destroyed. Does this sound familiar???
The decision of the court stated in part, “Who can say that the spirit of the Master or Masters, whether
called by one name or another, might not see fit to use both men as instrumentalities or amanuenses for
communicating their messages of guidance and direction to humanity? The law deals with realities and
does not recognize communication with and the conveyances of legal rights by the spiritual world as the
basis for its judgment... One who narrates matters of fact may be protected by copyright as to his arrangement,
manner and style, but not as to material or ideas therein set forth. Nichols v. Universal Pictures
Corp., D.C., 34 F.2d 145.”
The court went on to say, “There is no plagiarism or copying of words and phrases as such, but only slight
similarity of experiences in that the parties became agencies for communicating between the spiritual and
material worlds...” Understandably, the court dismissed the case!
Doris Ekker writes directly what she receives from higher entities and has no cause or instruction to
interpret what she receives. There is a legal maxim that states her position succinctly: Quando Verba Et
Mens Congruunt, Non Est Interpretationi Locus, “When the words and the mind agree, there is no place
for interpretation.” Furthermore, Doris Ekker does not copyright the Words of God. That is something
she cannot and will not ever do.
Therefore, since Doris Ekker arrived at her information regarding the subject of Light independently from
Walter Russell, and since her work bears some resemblance to Russell’s simply because the source, God,
is the same source and His Truth is unchanging, then we need to look at the court’s decision in the case of
O’Rourke v. RKO Radio Pictures, 44 F.Supp. 480, 482,483 (D.C. Mass.). That court stated in its
decision that “(E)ven an exact counterpart of another’s work does not constitute ‘plagiarism’ if such counterpart
was arrived at independently.”
Said another way, the courts have argued that a work is original and may command copyright protection
even if it is completely identical with a prior work, provided it was not copied from such prior work but is
rather a product of the independent efforts of its author. See: 1971 case of Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.
v. Graphic Controls Corp., 329 F.Supp. 517 (S.D.N.Y.). Again, Doris Ekker did not copy her work on
the subject of Light from anyone else, yet neither does she wish to copyright the works of God.
In the final analysis, it appears that Walter Russell himself may be liable for copyrighting the works of God
(if such a state of affairs is cognizable At Law), while Doris Ekker now suffers undue burden and hardship
by being charged with contempt for a crime she did not commit!!!
If the legal maxim is true that, Lex Semper Intendit Quod Convenit Rationi, “The law always
intends what is agreeable to reason,” then Doris should have a reasonable expectation of US&P
immediately issuing a formal apology to her personally.
54